1) Tax cuts2) Personal responsibility3) Make poor medicaid people buy their own insurance, dammit.4) Hack up medicaire into various levels. The good levels would require that you pay for it personally5) Tax cuts, raise the retirement age. WORK TILL YOU DIE, PEONS.

For those who do not want to give NewsBusters a click, here are some highlights from the "plan":

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs.""Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition.""Instead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program.""Replace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium.""Any new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

That's...wow. Not really a plan. Most of it is a minor change to Obamacare, such as changing "exemption" to "credit". Notice how the only actionable item is privatizing Medicare?

WND and Newsbusters are not credible sources of information or opinion. They are derp factories. They don't provide a counterbalance to newspapers and television stations. They are the pooh-flinging apes of the media world, and pretending they represent the logical opposite to Maureen Dowd or David Brooks makes you look like you fling pooh too.

Geebus. There aren't two sides to every issue. There are a million facets. You present two of them, diametrically opposed, so you can claim you are fair. Your predictable selection of stories for troll-tastic inspiration and artificial balance makes you no better than the news organizations you mock.

From what I can see, Obamacare is far from perfect but holy shiat it's a START, people!

It'll need some tweaking (there will be companies that find ways to garner the system, people who try to take advantage, etc) but look at the facts as they stand now:

You're the richest nation on the planet Earth, and yet you have a health care system that bankrupts entire families while maintaining the highest health costs AND the lowest results in all industrialized nations.

So maybe this will push you from the ABSOLUTE WORST to 45th worst. Nobody is going to enact a law that fixes everything immediately, it'll need to be done step-by-step and this is that first step.

Karac:1: Replace 'tax exemption' in Obamacare with 'tax credit'.2: Ask people very nicely to please buy insurance.3: Keep the pre-existing condition ban from ObamacareAmericans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/07/03/brooks#ixzz1zf9H gSga.4: Privatize medicaid; because the poorest people will of course be able to afford private insurance.5: Never, ever, ever increase the amount of money spent on medicare; presumably cutting funding would be OK. Somehow this will not lead to lower medicare funding per person as the elderly population increases.

So rebrand the parts of Obamacare they like, and screw grandma and the poor right in the pooper while calling it a free colonoscopy.

Number three is not keeping the nondenial for previous conditions, it is saying that the insurance company can't raise your rates for a major disease, I posted the exact quote from the article, it says nothing about forcing insurance companies to offer you coverage. The Republicans think it is okay to deny coverage if you lose your insurance and try to get new insurance, see Mitt Romney for example.

The Republican party is not going to "abolish" "Obamacare" at all. They're simply going to rename it something like the "Patriotic We Love Jesus Healthcare Act", and it will be exactly the same, and the morons in the Tea Party will love it, because it wasn't proposed by a blah person.

1: Replace 'tax exemption' in Obamacare with 'tax credit'.2: Ask people very nicely to please buy insurance.3: Keep the pre-existing condition ban from Obamacare.4: Privatize medicaid; because the poorest people will of course be able to afford private insurance.5: Never, ever, ever increase the amount of money spent on medicare; presumably cutting funding would be OK. Somehow this will not lead to lower medicare funding per person as the elderly population increases.

So rebrand the parts of Obamacare they like, and screw grandma and the poor right in the pooper while calling it a free colonoscopy.

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."

Doesn't address the biggest problem of the cost of an insurance plan, which is the price. Unless the tax credit is retardedly high, this won't do shiat.

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

You just described parts of Obamacare.

"nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."

See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost of insurance, which is why people get on Medicaid in the first place. If they're eligible, they're not going to be able to pay for a private insurance plan. You can welcome them all you like, but they won't be able to afford it. It's the medical version of "Let them eat cake."

"[R]eplace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."

See Boobies. Doesn't address the cost.

"[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."

Does the tax credit meet or exceed the cost benefit of the tax exemption? You provide no numbers or even a f*cking explanation of that the f*ck you're talking about. You're talking about vouchers, right? F*ck you.

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."

Um, yeah. What the f*ck do you think the goal of ACA is? Are you that stupid?

"nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."

So, rather than being almost fully covered, we'll give you a voucher for $5k and you can figure out how to pay the other $15k? Wow, that sounds like a good deal. Again, you provide no f*cking numbers. Do you idiots not understand how you are supposed to offer a proposal? You have to give examples and sh*t. F- you fail the presentation.

"[R]eplace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."

How many f*cking ways can you say voucher? Jesus H. Christ.

"[A]ny new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."

Yeah... offsets. Uh huh... Sure. Hey, how are you guys paying for the Bush Tax cuts and Medicare Part D? How are those "offsets" working out for us?

If the "plan" had recommended eliminating employer-based plans, that might have raised my eyebrow. As it's laid out, scaffolding my level of care & forcing me to retire later isn't even close to rational.

jakomo002:So maybe this will push you from the ABSOLUTE WORST to 45th worst. Nobody is going to enact a law that fixes everything immediately, it'll need to be done step-by-step and this is that first step.

yeah, but the weird thing is that the GOP seems to believe that unless a health care plan completely solves the problem right out of the gate and is perfect in each and every respect...then it's not worth doing. that's actually kind of insane, not to mention impossible. Not to mention that the Republicans don't apply this insane 'perfect plan' requirement to anything THEY propose. so on top of requiring a perfect plan, they've got a double standard working as well.

Not that any of this matters. Obamacare is now law of the land. The GOP can't get rid of it, they can't stop it and it absolutely will not stop...EVER!

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".

As retarded as that poster's comment was, I have to admit a certain glee at the fact that they've lost control of the word "Obamacare" and now have had to try and re-christen it "Obamatax" because they know they're eventually going to lose the narrative on this one.

"Instead of relying on the current tax exemption that hides costs, the Republican plans would offer people a tax credit for use to purchase the insurance plan that suits their needs."So, If you dont make enough money to pay taxes, you get bupkis.

"Americans should be strongly encouraged to buy continuous coverage over their adulthood. Then insurance companies would not be permitted to jack up their premiums if a member of their family develops a costly condition."If your Insurance company goes out of business, gets merged with another company or just changes its name, suddenly you get bupkis.

"Instead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."If your not ready to pay for Medicaid Services you get bupkis.

"Replace Medicare's open-ended cost burden with a defined contribution structure. Beneficiaries could choose from a menu of approved plans. If they wanted a more expensive plan, they could pay for it on top of the fixed premium."If youre not ready to pay for a Really Big "Donut Hole" you get bupkis.

"Any new spending would be offset with cuts so that health care costs do not continue to devour more and more of the federal budget. This could be done, for example, by gradually raising the retirement age."Insurance is guaranteed to go through the roof to make sure that no matter how long you work, you get bupkis.

It's become pretty clear that republicans haven't the foggiest notion how to plan for things. I'm not sure they actually understand what a "plan" is. They seem to think that a series of vague goals amounts to a plan. It really seems they are incapable of planning anything more complex than ordering a pizza.

In my job when we release a new version of our system we create detailed release plans that list each and every specific action to be taken. Even for the simplest of routine releases we are careful to list every important detail. I think the republican version would look something like this:

Giltric:Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....

Universities aren't regulated such that 85% of their budget has to be spend on actual education.

Giltric:Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....

NewportBarGuy:"nstead of locking Medicaid recipients into a substandard system, the Republicans would welcome them into the same private insurance health markets as their fellow citizens. This would give them greater access to care, while reducing the incentives that encourage them to remain eligible for the program."

So, rather than being almost fully covered, we'll give you a voucher for $5k and you can figure out how to pay the other $15k? Wow, that sounds like a good deal. Again, you provide no f*cking numbers. Do you idiots not understand how you are supposed to offer a proposal? You have to give examples and sh*t. F- you fail the presentation.

My husband and I have had insurance through his company since before we had kids. One of my sisters, who was once a single Mom, has, at times, had her kids on medicaid and/or the state subsidized program that I believe is called Peachcare. Over the years, depending on what the company stuck my husband with, her kids have had, at times, access to care that was superior to that my kids had access to via private health insurance.

I believe Republicans constantly repeat that programs like Medicaid are substandard in the hopes of brain washing the less informed, who are themselves dependent upon these programs, to cry out for the destruction of their own safety net.

Will this guarantee of healthcare will do to costs of coverage what the guarantee of money for college has done to tuition rates....ie rampant inflation .....law of unintended consequence and all that.....

I'm surprised there wasn't a cry for selling insurance over state lines. Sounds great in theory, but it doesn't really work. No real change in the number of people insured and the consumer gets screwed. Again.

GentDirkly:Right, they believe that making people pay the first dollar of their care will make them only buy care that they need. This might be true. But it also could undermine the concept of prevention and maintenance, leaving us again with too many people going to emergency rooms for preventable things.

This plan is also going to do approximately nothing to help with the whole "Going to the emergency room and skipping out on the bill" thing that is driving costs up to begin with.

GentDirkly:The biggest thing that should be changed is the expectation that your employer should provide you with coverage.

By itself that's not saying a lot, at least for the employees. The plan cited by the article cited by this blog post wants to introduce a fixed tax credit instead. This looks a bit troublesome. You'd find lots of people with the minimal insured plan, where there's no additional premiums to pay. Now this might be enough for a healthy, young individual, it's probably not enough for a family of four with some serious chronic health issues. I seriously doubt that the invisible hand will create enough competition in this subsector to provide for that.

Sure, easily alleviated by some mandatory minimum standards, where the base plan has to cover certain things at this fixed price, but how big are the chances that a GOP-led plan would include such federal regulations?

Martian_Astronomer:Martian_Astronomer: Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?

Okay, I was wrong. It's actually:

"Privatize Medicare, make the base-level coverage pay for almost nothing, encourage insurance companies to institute their own 'death panels,' raise retirement age, and cut all other social programs.

Oh, and tax cuts."

Right, they believe that making people pay the first dollar of their care will make them only buy care that they need. This might be true. But it also could undermine the concept of prevention and maintenance, leaving us again with too many people going to emergency rooms for preventable things.

Martian_Astronomer:Without reading the article or the thread, I'm guessing it's "Cut taxes for the rich so that they can create more jobs for poor people so that they can buy health insurance." Am I close?

Okay, I was wrong. It's actually:

"Privatize Medicare, make the base-level coverage pay for almost nothing, encourage insurance companies to institute their own 'death panels,' raise retirement age, and cut all other social programs.

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".

I love how they compare the cost of a hospital bed to renting a 3 bedroom house. $1,000 a day is actually low, critical care units can cost $4-5,000 a day. The reason it's so expensive is that hospitals are extremely expensive to staff and maintain. And an EKG machine for $300? Really?

It sounds like someone has a problem with the way the free market is working....

The problem with Obamatax, it has nothing to do with health care, it has to do with controlling insurance. The reason insurance keeps going up is because the cost of health care keeps going up. Does Obamatax prevent hospitals from charging $3 per tylenol, when you can buy a bottle of 250 for $12? Does it stop a hospital from charging $1000 a day for a bed, when you can rent a 3 bedroom house for a month for that much? Does it stop a cardiologist from charging $100 for an EKG on a machine that cost him $300, and was paid for with just the patients on the first day he received it? It also doesn't stop pharmacy companies from charging us $150 per month for a pill they sell in the rest of the world for $30 a month. Why do pills cost so much? Because they spend millions of dollars on tv ads trying to convince us to demand our doctors give us that new pill, whose side effect are usually 5 times as bad as what the pill is preventing."

Why the hell so you think those costs are what they are you farking retard? Also, of course they have a plan. Their plan was developed by conservative think tanks and first implemented by a republican governer. It's now commonly known as "Obamacare".